Margaret Watson: If a statement is published about the deceased is true, then there is no case to answer, is there!!

“Truth” is one defense to libel/slander actions. If a plaintiff files suit, though, there is a “case to answer” no matter that they may lose because what is alleged to be both false and defamatory is in fact true.

We In America are doin much the same thing to ourselves Giving up basic freedoms for a little Perceived Security. We now live in a country of Fear Brought about by the events of September 11th. Now we want the Gov’t to spy on potential Terrorists regardless of the cost regardless of the “Interpretation” of Terrorist. For abhorrant fear that something like that may happen again or worse god forbid.

Americans would be good to remember what Ben Franklin said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

That is all that the upsurgence of Stalinizm is Security even at the cost of Liberty

http://jpohl.blogspot.com

I do not know why that happened.

Soronel Haetir: Isn’t a lot of this at the behest of the Russian government itself, for whatever nationalist reason(s) they might have?

From that link provided by guy in the veal calf office:

Boris Dubin, a senior researcher at the Levada-Center, formerly known as the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, in Moscow, cited a revealing statistic. In 1988, only 12 percent of Russians considered Stalin a significant world leader. By the time Vladimir Putin became president in 1999, that number had increased to 53 percent of the Russian population, and the majority of the people placed him among the top three or four of the greatest world leaders, alongside Mahatma Gandhi. Today a majority of Russians consider Stalin to be the single greatest figure in all of Soviet history.

The government may be a major contributor, but those figures are surprising and disturbing to me, since it seems to be that admiration for Stalin isn’t limited to some elderly Russians.

neurodoc:
Thanks for the link, which helped answer my questions above about who could possibly think of Stalin in a positive light. It seems that it is not just some elderly nostalgic for the time when Russia was a superpower, notwithstanding how oppressive the government and failed the economy, but many more then that particular demographic slice. Amazing and dismaying that this should be so.

Isn’t a lot of this at the behest of the Russian government itself, for whatever nationalist reason(s) they might have?

His name is Dzhugashvili, so not that many people would even know about his connection to Stalin, unless he told them.

FWIW, I knew, and I don’t think I have ever even read a biography of Stalin. I suspect Russians know who his ancestors are like Americans know who Jackie O’s first husband was.

(Speaking of Mr. Dzhugashvili brought to mind other famous WWII dictators who changed names, and I googled Shickelgruber to check the spelling, only to find out that the google consensus is that Hitler was never named Shickelgruber (or whatever, the spelling seems to vary). His father was, but changed his name before Adolf was born. Another dinner table conversation tidbit bites the dust!)

guy in the veal calf office: Jonathan Brent has a lot more on the rehabilitation of that mass murderer.

Thanks for the link, which helped answer my questions above about who could possibly think of Stalin in a positive light. It seems that it is not just some elderly nostalgic for the time when Russia was a superpower, notwithstanding how oppressive the government and failed the economy, but many more then that particular demographic slice. Amazing and dismaying that this should be so.

Kirk Parker: Martinned,If countless people here in the USA, many if not most of them not of Slavic origin, know that Dzhugashvili is Stalin’s family name, what are the chances of the average Russian-in-the-street not knowing that?

I tend to measure such things by myself. Since I even know what Buys Ballot’s law is, I tend to assume that any random trivia that I don’t know will be unknown to the vast majority of the human population. I did know that Stalin was only his nickname, and I also knew that he was from Georgia, but I had to copy/paste his real name from the BBC story.

For the US, though, I’m pretty sure that “countless” would be an overstatement. One would hope that “countless” people in the US would know who Stalin was, but even that’s not entirely certain. (That’s not a complaint about the US. I find that in most places people don’t know the most basic factoids.)

Anyway, to the extent that he can prove that an incorrect statement of fact about person X is causing more than de minimis damage to his reputation and/or livelihood, I’d be OK with the court entertaining the suit, no matter who person X is. (NYT v Sullivan issues aside.) It’s not defamation, but it could very well be an unlawful act in the normal civil law approach to tort liability.

If countless people here in the USA, many if not most of them not of Slavic origin, know that Dzhugashvili is Stalin’s family name, what are the chances of the average Russian-in-the-street not knowing that?

I’d say that sueing over “family honour” is a different matter: If you translate that into legalese, the claim is that a (defamatory) statement made about a third party is hurting the plaintiff’s reputation. Judging from the BBC article linked, that’s not what this guy is doing. He seems to be claiming simply to vindicate his grandfather’s reputation, not his own. (His name is Dzhugashvili, so not that many people would even know about his connection to Stalin, unless he told them.)

In that circumstance, how can he show damage? How does the defendant’s alleged defamatory statement adversely affect him, as opposed to the late Stalin himself? If this guy can sue over Stalin’s reputation, does that mean that I can sue to protect Lenin’s reputation?

It’s not farfetched to suppose that another country might allow someone’s direct descendant to sue for defamation of the decedent. He’s not a pure bystander, he is affected in some way by his grandfather’s reputation, and injury to “family honor” is something some societies care about.

If Russian courts were bound by Lujan, that would be different…

Was Stalin’s reputation really so great that he is damaged by the appearance of his signature on death warrants?

Pinochet! Pinochet! Pinochet!

[removes fingers from ears]

Ontopic: I found this video rather illustrative about the whole uptrend of Stalin in Moscow.

NathanM: Decent is not synonymous with common law. I know it’s our rule, but there’s nothing inherently indecent about protecting the reputations of dead people who are not mass-murderers.

And it’s our rule only as regards civil acts. A number of US states retain a criminal “defamation of the dead” statute that at least in theory could be applied in situations severe and infamous enough to attract attention of the public prosecutor. This (PDF) piece arguing against the notion of criminal libel altogether lists ten U.S. states with such statutes: Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Washington. It gives the citations as: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2000); O.C.G.A. § 16-11-40 (2000); Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2000); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4004 (2000); La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47(2) (2001); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510 (2001); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-01 (2001); 21 Okla. Stat. § 771 (2000); Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-501 (2001); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.58.010 (2001).

It is impossible to defame someone who is dead (or at least it should be impossible in any decent legal jurisdiction).

Decent is not synonymous with common law. I know it’s our rule, but there’s nothing inherently indecent about protecting the reputations of dead people who are not mass-murderers.

any decent legal jurisdiction

That is one thing that hasn’t changed much since Stalin’s day, the courts in Russia seem unusually sensitive to the government’s preferred outcome. Unlike here where the courts often seem unduly gleeful at sticking a finger in the government’s eye.

It won’t matter much, Stalin’s reputation didn’t really hinge on whether he personally signed any death warrants. Just like it doesn’t matter, other than as an artifact, whether Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot personally signed any death warrants, they were responsible for their regimes crimes, regardless of how many layers of bureaucrats were between them and the actual executioners.